Applied Energy 137 (2015) 211–221

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Heat and mass transfer performance analysis and cooling capacity

prediction of earth to air heat exchanger
Fuxin Niu a, Yuebin Yu a,⇑, Daihong Yu b,⇑, Haorong Li a
a
Durham School of Architectural Engineering and Construction College of Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Omaha, NE, USA
b
Architectural Engineering Department, Lawrence Technological University, Southfield, MI, USA

h i g h l i g h t s

 We investigated the performance and deduced a regression model for an EAHE.

 A one-dimensional steady-state control volume model was developed and applied.
 The model considered both heat and mass transfer in the tube and was calibrated.
 Six structural and operation factors were analyzed with the validated model.
 A polynomial regression model with high accuracy was developed.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A great portion of the primary energy is consumed by space heating and cooling in buildings. The need for
Received 21 March 2014 utilizing more renewable energy in the building sector remains critical for ensuring the energy and
Received in revised form 21 September environment sustainability. Geothermal energy is one of the renewable energy sources that we have
2014
an easy access to for supplying low-grade thermal energy with a low impact on the environment. The
Accepted 1 October 2014
Available online 24 October 2014
methods of utilizing geothermal energy for buildings include such as ground source heat pumps and
earth to air heat exchangers (EAHEs). In this paper we presented the comprehensive performance anal-
ysis and deduced an easy-to-apply regression model for predicting the cooling capacity of an EAHE. A
Keywords:
Earth to air heat exchanger
one-dimensional steady-state control volume model was developed and applied to simulate the perfor-
Sensible cooling capacity mance of the EAHE. It couples both heat and mass transfer between the air and the tube. The model was
Latent cooling capacity calibrated by comparing against the experimental data from an existing renewable energy testing facility.
Fast regression model After the calibration, six factors, namely the air temperature, the air relative humidity, the air velocity at
the inlet of EAHE, the tube surface temperature, and the tube length and diameter on the performance
were analyzed using the calibrated model. The polynomial regression models for predicting the cooling
capacities including total, sensible and latent cooling capacity with high accuracy were obtained. The
easy-to-apply formulas can be of great use in the design and application of EAHEs.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Geothermal energy is a huge renewable energy source that can
be easily accessed for space heating and cooling purposes. The
utilizing styles and exploring methods are various. Geothermal
electricity, ground source heat pump, earth to air heat exchanger
(EAHE), etc. are the main application measures. Among them, an
EAHE has the advantages of simple system, easy implementation
and low operation cost [1]. An EAHE system is a thermal system
with tubes buried in the ground which can extract the thermal
⇑ Corresponding authors. Tel.: +1 402 554 2082.
E-mail addresses: yuebinyu@gmail.com (Y. Yu), daisy.energy@gmail.com (D. Yu).
energy from the soil into the air for heating and cooling the space
in winter and summer, respectively. The performance of an EAHE
has been researched by many researchers [2–6].
To understand the heat and mass transfer between the air and
the soil of an EAHE, analytical methods such as using Green’s func-
tion and through a simplified superposition analysis and numerical
models by differencing the control equations were generally
applied. For instance, Cucumo et al. proposed a one-dimensional
transient model and obtained the analytical solutions after simpli-
fication for an EAHE [7]. Both mass transfer and thermal distur-
bance from the ground surface were considered. The results
could be used to predict the temperature of the fluid in the tube
and of the soil near the tube. The solution was also evaluated by

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.10.008
0306-2619/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
212 F. Niu et al. / Applied Energy 137 (2015) 211–221
Nomenclature
Roman letter symbols
a coefficient
f enhancement coefficient
h enthalpy (kJ/kg)
hc convectional heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 K)
m mass flow rate of air flow (kg/s)
t time (h)
u coefficient
w humidity ratio (kg/kg)
z depth (m)
A area (m2)
B amplitude (°C)
C specific heat (J/kg K)
D diameter (m)
L length of tube (m)
N node number
P perimeter (m)
Q cooling capacity (kW)
T temperature (°C)
Subscripts/acronyms
a air
i, n counter
using reference experimental data from the literature. Hollmuller
presented an analytical solution for the heat diffusion of a cylindri-
cal EAHE with adiabatic or isothermal boundary conditions [8]. The
airflow with harmonic temperature signal at input was assumed
constant. The analytical results were validated by numerical vali-
dation on hourly data over one year. Based on that model, it has
been shown that depending on its thickness, the soil layer could
induce either an amplitude-dampening or phase-shifting regimes.
Paepe and Janssens used a simplified one-dimensional analytical
method to evaluate the various design parameters including tube
length, tube diameter and number of tubes in parallel of an EAHE
system. The study was to support the selection of the characteristic
dimensions of an EAHE during the design period, therefore
optimize the hydraulic and thermal effectiveness [9].
In addition to the analytical solution on just an EAHE, many
researchers carried out the numerical model research of an EAHE
coupled with either a building or mechanical devices. Kumar
et al. built a numerical model to predict the energy conservation
potential of an EAHE system and passive thermal performance of
buildings [10]. The model was improved upon previous studies
by incorporating effects of ground temperature gradient, surface
conditions, moisture content and various design aspects of an
earth–air–tunnel. The model was validated against experimental
data of a similar tunnel in Mathura (India), and was then used to
predict the tunnel outlet temperature for various parameters such
as humidity variations of circulating air, airflow rate and ambient
air temperature. Using a numerical model, M. Bojic evaluated the
technical and economic performance of an EAHE coupled to a
building that uses 100% fresh air as heating or cooling medium
during winter and summer [11]. It was found that the use of the
EAHE covered a portion of the daily building needs for space ther-
mal conditioning. A computation fluid dynamic simulation of an
EAHE applied to a hybrid ventilation building in Grong (Norway)
was conducted and the results were then evaluated by using field
measurements [12]. The convective heat transfer coefficient,
obtained from the simulation, showed that the correlations signif-
icantly underestimated the heat convection in the EAHE.
l latent
s soil, sensible
sat saturation
t total
EAHE earth to air heat exchanger
MRE mean relative error
Nu Nusselt number
Pr Prandtl number
Re Reynolds number
RH relative humidity
Sh Sherwood number
Greek letters
a thermal diffusivity (m2/s)
b convective mass transfer coefficient (m/s)
k heat conductivity (W/m K)
d residual
x diffusion coefficient (m2/s)
h temperature (°C)
q specific density (kg/m3)
Besides modeling and simulation, field experiments are still of
great importance in order to evaluate the thermal and mass trans-
fer performance of EAHEs. For example, Ghosal carried out an
experimental research on an EAHE [13]. The experiment was con-
ducted for many typical clear sunny days in a year for an EAHE 1 m
under the ground surface. The room air temperature was mainly
measured and compared for the operation with and without the
EAHE. About 3–4 °C lower in summer and 6–7 °C degree higher
in winter were found when the EAHE is in operation. Recently, Li
et al. [6] and Yu et al. [14] conducted a series of tests on an EAHE
system coupled with a building and a solar chimney. The soil tem-
perature at different levels under the ground, the air temperatures
and humidity in the EAHE, and the outdoor air temperature and
humidity were continuously measured for years. The cooling
capacity in both passive driven mode and active driven model were
analyzed in terms of the air flow rates and outdoor air conditions. It
was found that the enhanced EAHE system could maintain the
indoor thermal conditions in a comfortable range without a fan.
However, a performance drop of the EAHE system due to soil
saturation in both modes was also identified.
From the literature review, we found that the majority of
simulation and modeling research focus on only very limited EAHE
configurations. Few efforts were paid to the comprehensive evalu-
ation of an EAHE with different design and operation parameters.
In addition, most research ignored the latent heat transfer which
affects the humidity load of buildings. Above all, a practical ques-
tion of how to easily and accurately apply the simulation research
results to real applications for EAHE generalization remains
unsolved. In this paper a numerical model considered both sensible
and latent heat transfer was used. The effect of main parameters of
air temperature, relative humidity, air velocity at the inlet of EAHE,
surface temperature, length and diameter of EAHE on the perfor-
mance were analyzed. The model was calibrated by comparing
the simulated results against the experimental data trended from
an existing facility. With the calibrated model, general formulas
for accurately predicting the sensible, latent and total cooling
capacity of EAHEs were achieved. The identified formulas are
 F. Niu et al. / Applied Energy 137 (2015) 211–221 213

easy-to-apply and deemed to provide great helps to engineers for Control volume method was used to establish an energy
EAHE optimal design considering both sensible and latent heat balance for each micro-volume. Similar model was developed for
transfer. heat transfer of an EAHE tube in [16]. Fig. 1 shows the EAHE tube
mesh along the length and the energy balance existing within indi-
2. Mathematic modeling of EAHE vidual small control volume. In order to comprehensively analyze
the performance of EAHE mass transfer was also considered.
2.1. Underground soil temperature model Therefore, the progress of heat transfer between air and earth
was divided into two parts including sensible heat transfer and
The underground soil temperature was one of main parameters latent heat transfer.
in the process of EAHE design. The determinant parameter for the
evaluation of the ground cooling and heating potential is the 2.2.1. Heat transfer
underground soil temperature at various depths. Ideally, this value For each control volume, the energy governing equation with no
should be measured onsite. However, only a few weather stations condensation is shown as follows [9]:
perform measurements of ground surface temperature, while the m  C a dT a ¼ P  hc ðT s  T a Þdx ð2Þ
number of the stations where measurements at various depths
were performed was even smaller. This is why algorithms for the As a homogeneous ordinary differential equation, the air tem-
calculation of the underground soil temperature at various depths perature in each small control volume can be solved analytically.
have been developed. For homogeneous soil of constant thermal After reorganizing the terms, it becomes:
diffusivity, the underground soil temperature at any depth z and dh
time t is shown as follows [15]: a þh¼0 ð3Þ
dx
Tðz;tÞ ¼ T m  Bs where h ¼ T a  T s ; a ¼ mC
Phc
a

"  1=2 # "   1=2 !#

p 2p z 365 The heat transfer coefficient, hc, between the air and the surface
 exp z cos t  t0 
365as 365 2 pas of the tube depends on flow properties, dimensions of the tube and
thermal conductivity of the air.
ð1Þ
Nu  ka
where Tm is the average soil temperature, Bs is the amplitude of the hc ¼ ð4Þ
D
soil surface temperature variation, t0 is the phase constant of the
soil surface, and as is the soil thermal diffusivity. Within the equation, Nu is Nusselt number; ka is thermal con-
ductivity of air; they can be calculated as follows [17,18],
respectively:
2.2. Earth to air heat exchanger model
Nu ¼ 0:023Re0:8 Pr0:4 ðheatingÞ
Following assumptions were made during the development of ð5Þ
Nu ¼ 0:023Re0:8 Pr0:3 ðcoolingÞ
the mathematical model:

(1) The EAHE is of uniform cross-section area and thermal ka ¼ 0:02442 þ ð104 ð0:6992T a ÞÞ ð6Þ
characteristics. With the key parameters, the above ordinary differential Eq. (3)
(2) The soil properties are isotropic. can be solved as follows for each control volume:
(3) There exists a perfect contact between the tube and the soil.
(4) Thermal resistance due to tube thickness is negligible.
T a ðxÞ ¼ T s  ðT s  T 0 Þ expðx=aÞ ð7Þ
(5) Air is incompressible and its thermal propertied are With the air temperature within each control volume, Eq (1)
constant. can be differenced as:
(6) Air is well mixed in the tube with no temperature
m  C a ðT n1  T n Þ ¼ A  f  hc ðT a  T s Þ ð8Þ
stratification.
To ensure the simulation accuracy, in this study, each element
was further divided into i sub-elements. Therefore, the representa-
tive air temperature in each element can be obtained by the
averaging the air temperatures in the included i sub-elements:
P
i ðT s  ðT s  T n1 Þ expðxi =aÞÞ
Ta ¼ ð9Þ
i
The air temperature at the various locations along the meshed
tube, from the inlet to the outlet, is numerically achieved:
P 
i ðT s  ðT s  T n1 Þ expðxi =aÞÞ
T n ¼ T n1  u  Ts ð10Þ
i
where u ¼ Af hc
mC a
is a combined coefficient of the model.

2.2.2. Integrated heat and mass transfer

Fig. 1. Control volume method and energy balance in each volume.
When the air temperature in a control volume drops to the cor-
responding dew point, condensation could happen. The mass
transfer governing equation can be established as follows where
the driving force for mass transfer between the air and EAHE
surface is the air humidity ratio and the saturated humidity ratio
corresponding to the EAHE surface temperature [19]:
214 F. Niu et al. / Applied Energy 137 (2015) 211–221

Start the predicted soil temperature. The simulated supply air tempera-
ture was compared against the measured data to evaluate the
Input structure and initial parameters accuracy of the model and calibrate it. The mean relative error
(MRE) between the predicted supply air temperature and the mea-
Divide the tube into control volumes
sured supply air temperature was employed as the indicator of the
model accuracy. MRE equal and less than 0.09 was selected as the
x=0 acceptable threshold for this calibration.

Calculate convective heat and mass

transfer coefficient 3. Model calibration and validation

Calculate the average air temperature Adjust unknown

x=x+Δx
parameters
Based on the existing facility, the field testing data was used to
in each control volume
verify the model. An existing test facility is located in Omaha in
U.S. for the coupled EAHE and solar chimney thermal system. A
Condensation culvert steel EAHE with 57 m in length and 0.45 m in diameter
Yes No
was buried at a depth of about 3 m underground. The test facility
Apply both heat Apply only heat building is a one-story building with external dimensions of
and mass balance balance (For calibration)
19.4 m long, 4.9 m wide, and 3 m high. It includes a main testing
room about 15.2 m long, 4.52 m wide and 2.4 m high.
No
x=L
Yes
3.1. Validation of underground soil temperature model

Output the result

Based on the meteorological data and field test the under-
ground soil temperature model in the location of facility was
Comparing experimental
and simulated result obtained with parameters as shown in Table 1. The average annual
temperature of the soil surface was 11.42 °C, amplitude of surface
Yes
Error >δ temperature variation was 12.42 °C and a phase constant was 15 h.
No Underground soil temperatures of two depths with 1.53 m and
The end 2.90 m were measured and simulated. The comparison between
the experimental value and simulated value is presented in
Fig. 2. The simulation and calibration flowchart. Fig. 3. As seen from the figure the tested and simulated value
matched very well. It indicates that the equation of underground
soil temperature can be used to design EAHE in the location of
mðwn1  wn Þ ¼ A  b  qa ðwa  wsat;s Þ ð11Þ Omaha.
Shx
where b ¼ D
Sh is Sherwood number; x is diffusion coefficient.
:
Coupling the heat and mass transfer balance for each control 3.2. Calibration of EAHE model
volume, the total governing equation is achieved:
A long term experiment testing was carried out throughout the
m  C a ðT n1  T n Þ þ mðwn1  wn Þhfg ¼ A  f  hc ðT a  T s Þ ð12Þ
whole year of 2008 and 2009 using the mentioned existing facility.
Eqs. (2)–(12) constitute the model for the heat and mass transfer
with the EAHE.
Table 1
Coefficients of the underground soil temperature.
2.3. Simulation program and calibration of EAHE
Value Unit

The simulation program was developed in Matlab 8. Fig. 2 Tm 11.42 °C

shows the simulation and calibration flowchart. In the process of Bs 12.42 °C
t0 15 h
simulation, the calculation proceeds along with length step from
the inlet to the outlet of tube. The surface temperature of the EAHE
tube is considered constant for a given short period by using the
undisturbed soil temperature at the depth of the buried tube. By
22
comparing the air temperature and the corresponding dew point
20 Depth=1.53m (Experiment)
temperature of the air in each control volume, the program Depth=2.90m (Experiment)
18
determines whether condensation should be concluded or not. Depth=1.53m (Simulation)
Accordingly, different calculation models for sensible heat transfer 16 Depth=2.90m (Simulation)
Temperature (oC)

14
only and both mass and heat transfer would be selected by the pro-
12
gram. In the real testing based on the existing facility, the param-
10
eters in Eqs. (2), (7) and (12) including the dimensions of EAHE, the
8
air temperature and relative humidity at the inlet, the air flow rate
6
could be measured or obtained directly. The only unknown param-
4
eters needed in the model are the real heat transfer coefficient and
2
inner surface temperature of the tube. Two-step calibration was
0
used in this study. First, the soil model was validated in Section 3.1
2008/1/1 2008/3/1 2008/5/1 2008/7/1 2008/9/1 2008/11/1 2009/1/1
to accurately predict the soil temperature; second, the EAHE model
Date
was calibrated with an optimal method to obtain the heat transfer
enhancement coefficient and the surface temperature of the EAHE. Fig. 3. The underground soil temperature of experiment and prediction with
The tube surface temperature was adjusted in the small range of different depths.
 F. Niu et al. / Applied Energy 137 (2015) 211–221 215

The comprehensive performance of EAHE including winter mode profile of the EAHE. The two supply air temperature curves match
and summer mode, condensation condition and non-condensation very well. The supply air temperature was kept at about 15 °C at
condition, natural ventilation and forced ventilation were obtained the beginning and then began to rise with the increasing of the
and analyzed clearly [6,14]. Based on the measurement data and outdoor air temperature. Fig. 4(b) indicates the matching level of
the simulated results in the cooling season, the EAHE model can simulated and experimental results. The relative and absolute error
be calibrated. In order to clearly compare the experimental and indexes of mean relative error (MRE) and mean square error (MSE)
simulated data from the calibrated model, only one day’s collected were introduced to analyze the reliability of the mathematic model
data of September 10, 2008 was used, as shown in Figs. 4(a) and and program. The MRE of the supply air temperature during the
5(a). The error analysis of model prediction based on data of the summer season is only 4.6% and the MSE is 0.63 °C. Fig. 5(a) shows
summer season was presented in Figs. 4(b) and 5(b). Fig. 4(a) the supply air humidity ratio for the calibration between experi-
shows the experimental and simulated supply air temperature ment and simulation results. The relative error index of the MRE

22
22 26

Simulated supply air temperature ( oC)

21 24 MRE=4.6%
20
MSE=0.63oC

Outdoor air temperature ( oC)

Supply air temperature ( oC)

20 22
19 20 18
18 18
16
17 16
16 14
14
15 12
14 Experimental supply air temperature, oC 10 12
13 Simulated supply air temperature, oC 8
Outdoor air temperature, oC 10
12 6
2008/9/10 00:00 2008/9/10 06:00 2008/9/10 12:00 2008/9/10 18:00 2008/9/11 00:00 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Time Experimental supply air temperature ( o C)

(a) (b)
Fig. 4. Comparison of the supply air temperature of EAHE (a) one day and (b) summer season.
Simulated supply air humidity ratio (kg/kg)

0.018
0.020 0.016
Outdoor air humidity ratio (kg/kg)
Supply air humidity ratio (kg/kg)

0.018 0.014 0.016 MRE=8.7%

MSE=0.000003 kg/kg
0.016
0.012 0.014
0.014
0.010
0.012
0.012
0.008
0.010 0.010
0.006
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.006
Experimental air humidity ratio (kg/kg) 0.002 0.006
0.004 Simulated air humidity ratio (kg/kg)
Outdoor air humidity ratio (kg/kg)
0.002 0.000 0.004
2008/9/10 00:00 2008/9/10 06:00 2008/9/10 12:00 2008/9/10 18:00 2008/9/11 00:00 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.01
Time Experimental supply air humidity ratio (kg/kg)
(a) (b)
Fig. 5. Comparison of the supply air humidity ratio of EAHE (a) one day and (b) summer season.

30 30
28 28 MRE=3.3%
MSE=0.45 oC
Simulated air temperature (oC)

26 Experimental air temperature 26

Air temperature ( oC)

Simulated air temperature

24 24
22 22
20 20
18 18
16 16
14 14
12 12
10 10
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
o
EAHE length (m) Experimental air temperature ( C)
(a) (b)
Fig. 6. Comparison of the air temperature along with the length of EAHE (existing facility).
216 F. Niu et al. / Applied Energy 137 (2015) 211–221

28
Experimental air temperature (reference) 26 MRE=3.2%
26

Simulated air temperature ( oC)

Simulated air temperature MSE=0.37 oC
24 24

Temperature ( oC)
22
22
20

18 20

16 18
14
16
12

10 14
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Length (m) Experimental air temperature , reference (oC)
(a) (b)
Fig. 7. Comparison of the air temperature along with the length of EAHE (reference).

of supply air humidity ratio between experiment and simulation
results is 8.7%. The absolute error index of MSE is just only
0.000003 kg/kg.
The above comparison is only about the supply air condition at
the outlet of this EAHE. Further, the calibrated model was used to
compare the predicted air temperature along with the length of
EAHE against the experiment and reference results. Fig. 6 shows
the air temperature along with the length of EAHE between the
simulated and experiment data. Fig. 7 shows the comparison
between Benkert’s testing results and our simulation [13]. As seen
from both figures the air temperature fell quickly along with the
length of EAHE due to the larger temperature difference at the for-
mer segment. The air temperature dropped slowly close to the out-
let of the EAHE. The trend is clearly shown for the experiment,
reference and simulation data. Fig. 6(a) indicates that the simu-
lated air temperature and the measured air temperature has a little
big error in the front part of the tube. The possible reason is that, in
the experiment, there was no well air mixing especially for the
entry part of the EAHE. In addition, the entry part was greatly
affected by the outdoor environment, which could result in the
imprecise measurement data. Therefore, the experimental data at
the entry part were ignored in the process of the error analysis.
The MRE of air temperature along the length of tube is 3.3%, and
the MSE is 0.45 °C. The MRE between the reference data from
[13] and simulation results is 3.2%, and the MSE is 0.37 °C. The
error is acceptable for engineering applications. According to the
above comparison and error analysis of simulated and experimen-
tal results (existing facility testing and reference data), the mathe-
matic model and simulation program were validated credibly and
accurately.
4. Parametric performance analysis
A comprehensive performance analysis of an EAHE could supply
great help for the design and application of EAHE. With the
calibrated EAHE model considering the sensible and latent heat
transfer, the effect of structural factors including the length and
diameter, operational factors including the air temperature and
relative humidity at the inlet of an EAHE, air velocity and surface
temperature of tube on the performance were studied. Table 2
shows the simulation conditions of all influencing factors. There
are five calculation modes to analyze the effect of each factor on
the performance of EAHE. Five conditions of each mode were
selected to cover as much as possible the full range of all influenc-
ing factors. The air temperature at the inlet of EAHE was selected in
the range of 26–34 °C. The air relative humidity at the inlet of EAHE
was selected from 20% to 90%, the air velocity from 0.5 m/s to
2.5 m/s, the tube surface temperature from 8 °C to 16 °C and the
tube diameter from 0.3 m to 0.7 m. The influence from the length
of the EAHE is naturally included since the simulation provides
the results along the length.
4.1. Effect of the inlet air temperature
In Mode 1, the effect of the inlet air temperature on the perfor-
mance of EAHE was analyzed. Fig. 8 shows the air temperature and
humidity ratio along with the length of EAHE under the different
inlet air temperature conditions. It can be seen from Fig. 8(a) that
the air temperature in the forepart of the tube dropped faster than
that of the end. At the inlet side, there was a big different between
air temperature and the surface temperature of the tube. Therefore,
the heat transfer is much stronger. When the inlet air temperature
was 34 °C, the air temperature decline rate was the biggest. The
rate decline with the inlet temperature of 26 °C was the lowest.
Almost all of outlet air temperatures were near 15 °C when the
tube surface temperature is 12 °C. If the length of tube was long
enough, the air temperature at the outlet will get very close to
the surface temperature of tube. As seen from Fig. 8(b) the air
humidity ratio kept a constant value first and then began to reduce.
When air humidity ratio began to decline, it meant that the air
achieved the saturated state at that point, and water vapor began
to condense. The condensation points under the inlet air

Table 2
Simulation conditions of all influence factors.

Conditions Notes
Mode 1: Tin (°C) 34 32 30 28 26 RHin = 60; Vin = 1.5; Ts = 12; L = 70; D = 0.5
Mode 2: RHin (%) 20 40 60 80 90 Tin = 30; Vin = 1.5; Ts = 12; L = 70; D = 0.5
Mode 3: Vin (m/s) 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Tin = 30; RHin = 60; Ts = 12; L = 70; D = 0.5
Mode 4: Ts (°C) 8 10 12 14 16 Tin = 30; RHin = 60; Vin = 1.5; L = 70; D = 0.5
Mode 5: D (m) 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Tin = 30; RHin = 60; Vin = 1.5; Ts = 12; L = 70
 F. Niu et al. / Applied Energy 137 (2015) 211–221 217

35 0.022
Tin=34 oC Tin=34 oC
Tin=32 oC 0.020 Tin=32 oC
30 Tin=30 oC Tin=30 oC

Humidity ratio (kg/kg)

Temperature ( oC) Tin=28 oC 0.018 Tin=28 oC
Tin=26 oC Tin=26 oC
25 0.016

0.014
20
0.012

15 0.010

0.008
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Length of EAHE (m) Length of EAHE (m)
(a) (b)
Fig. 8. Performance of EAHE under different inlet air temperature conditions.

temperature of 34 °C, 32 °C, 30 °C, 28 °C and 26 °C with 60% rela- humidity ratio along with the length of EAHE under the different
tive humidity ratio were 10 m, 11 m, 13 m, 15 m and 17.5 m air velocity conditions. When the air velocity was 0.5 m/s the air
respectively. The air with high temperature had a high humidity temperature decreasing rate was the fastest. The smaller the air
ratio, and declined faster than that of low temperature. velocity was, the faster the air temperature decreasing rate was,
and the lower the outlet air temperature was. When the air
4.2. Effect of the inlet air relative humidity velocity was low, the time of air staying in the tube was long.
Therefore, the heat transfer amount was also more than that of
In Mode 2, the effect of the inlet air relative humidity on the high air velocity. As seen from Fig. 10(b) the air humidity ratio kept
performance of EAHE was analyzed. Fig. 9 shows the air tempera- a same constant value first and then began to reduce. Condensation
ture and the humidity ratio along with the length of EAHE under point under the low air velocity came out earlier than that of the
the different inlet air relative humidity conditions. As seen from high air velocity. The condensation points under the air velocity
Fig. 9(a), the air temperatures along with the length of EAHE under of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m/s were 11, 12, 13, 13.5 and 14 m,
different inlet air relative humidity conditions were almost the respectively.
same. All outlet air temperatures were about 14 °C. In fact, the
air temperature was affected by the air relative humidity but only 4.4. Effect of the tube surface temperature
in a very little magnitude. In other word, the second term in Eq.
(12) standing for the latent heat transfer process was much smaller In Mode 4, the effect of the tube surface temperature on the
than the third term, which stands for the sensible heat transfer performance of EAHE was analyzed. Fig. 11 shows the air temper-
process. It can be seen from Fig. 9(b) when the inlet air relative ature and humidity ratio along with the length of EAHE under the
humidity was 20%, the humidity ratio along with length of tube different tube surface temperature conditions. As seen from
kept a constant value. There was no vapor condensation during Fig. 11(a), when the surface temperature of tube was much lower
the whole process. The results indicated that when the inlet air as 8 °C, the air temperature along with the length of EAHE reduced
relative humidity was low enough, no condensation along with more quickly. And the outlet air temperature under the low tube
the length of tube occurred. In our case, the air relative humidity surface temperature was lower than that of the high tube surface
limit was about 30%. temperature. When the tube surface temperature was 8 °C, the
outlet air temperature was 11 °C. When the tube surface tempera-
4.3. Effect of the air velocity ture was 16 °C the outlet air temperature was 18 °C. As seen from
Fig. 11(b), the air humidity ratio under the low surface tempera-
In Mode 3, the effect of the air velocity on the performance of ture of tube reached the saturated state earlier than that of high
EAHE was investigated. Fig. 10 shows the air temperature and surface temperature. In addition, the humidity ratio under the

30 0.028
RHin=20% RHin=20%
RHin=40% 0.024 RHin=40%
Humidity ratio (kg/kg)

RHin=60% RHin=60%
Temperature (o C)

25 RHin=80% 0.020 RHin=80%

RHin=90% RHin=90%
0.016

20 0.012

0.008

15 0.004

0.000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Length of EAHE (m) Length of EAHE (m)
(a) (b)
Fig. 9. Performance of EAHE under different inlet air relative humidity conditions.
218 F. Niu et al. / Applied Energy 137 (2015) 211–221

30 0.017

0.016 Vin=0.5 (m/s)

27 Vin=0.5 (m/s)
Vin=1.0 (m/s) Vin=1.0 (m/s)

Humidity ratio (kg/kg)

0.015 Vin=1.5 (m/s)
Temperature ( oC)
Vin=1.5 (m/s)
24 Vin=2.0 (m/s) Vin=2.0 (m/s)
Vin=2.5 (m/s) 0.014 Vin=2.5 (m/s)

21 0.013

0.012
18
0.011

15 0.010

0.009
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Length of EAHE (m) Length of EAHE (m)
(a) (b)
Fig. 10. Performance of EAHE under the different air velocity conditions.

30
0.016
Ts=8 oC
27
Ts=10 oC

Humidity ratio (kg/kg)

Ts=12 oC 0.014
24
Temperature ( oC)

Ts=14 oC
Ts=16 oC
21
0.012
18 Ts=8 oC
Ts=10 oC
15 0.010
Ts=12 oC
Ts=14 oC
12 Ts=16 oC
0.008
9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Length of EAHE (m) Length of EAHE (m)
(a) (b)
Fig. 11. Performance of EAHE under the different tube surface temperature conditions.

low surface temperature of tube declined faster than that of high was 17 °C, and 13 °C under the tube diameter of 0.7 m. The humid-
surface temperature. ity ratio had a similar trend with the air temperature in the phase
of saturated status. As seen from Fig. 12(b), the air humidity ratio
4.5. Effect of the tube diameter with the small tube diameter reached the saturated state earlier
than that of large diameter. And the humidity ratio under the small
In Mode 5, the effect of the tube diameter on the performance of tube diameter declined faster than that of a large diameter.
EAHE was simulated. Fig. 12 shows the air temperature and
humidity ratio along with the length of EAHE under the different 4.6. The cooling capacity of EAHE
tube diameter conditions. When the tube diameter was 0.3 m,
the air temperature reduced the most quickly at the former seg- Both the heat and mass transfer were considered in the mathe-
ment of EAHE. The air temperature under the large tube diameter matic modeling and simulation during the whole process. There-
condition reduced more slowly than that of the small tube diame- fore, the cooling capacity of EAHE including the sensible cooling
ter. The outlet air temperature under the tube diameter of 0.3 m capacity, the latent cooling capacity and the total cooling capacity

30 0.018
D=0.3 m D=0.3 m
Humidity ratio (kg/kg)

27 D=0.4 m
0.016 D=0.4 m
D=0.5 m D=0.5 m
24 D=0.6 m
Temperature ( oC)

D=0.6 m
D=0.7 m D=0.7 m
0.014
21

18 0.012

15
0.010
12
0.008
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Length of EAHE (m) Length of EAHE (m)
(a) (b)
Fig. 12. Performance of EAHE under the different tube diameter conditions.
 F. Niu et al. / Applied Energy 137 (2015) 211–221 219

is presented in the following figures. Fig. 13 shows the cooling below 40%. After then the latent cooling capacity began to increase
capacities of EAHE under the influences of six structural and oper- quickly. The change rate was 0.26 kW/%. Fig. 13(c) shows the cool-
ational factors. As seen from Fig. 13(a), the cooling capacity ing capacity along with the change of air velocity. As seen from the
increased along with the increase of the inlet air temperature. figure the sensible and latent cooling capacities had the same
However, the increase of latent cooling capacity was faster than change rate of 3.55 kW/(m/s) and were linear. The change rate of
sensible cooling capacity along with the inlet air temperature the total cooling capacity was 7.1 kW/(m/s). It can be seen from
increase. The change rate of sensible cooling capacity was Fig. 13(d) the sensible and latent cooling capacities reduced along
0.31 kW/°C and 0.79 kW/°C of latent cooling capacity. The total with the increase of the tube surface temperature. The sensible
cooling capacity’s change rate was 1.1 kW/°C. Fig. 13(b) shows cooling capacity was linear with the change rate value of
the three cooling capacities along with the inlet air relative humid- 0.33 kW/°C. The latent cooling capacity was parabolic. The higher
ity change. It can be seen from the figure that the sensible cooling the tube surface temperature was, the faster the latent cooling
capacity of EAHE which was not affected by air relative humidity capacity reduced. Fig. 13(e) presents the cooling capacity along
kept a constant value. And the latent cooling capacity was also with the length of tube. It can be seen from the figure the sensible
almost constant value when the inlet air relative humidity was and latent cooling capacities were parabolic. However the latent

18 20
16 18 Qs
Qs
Ql 16 Ql
14 Qt

Cooling capacity (kW)

Qt
Cooling capacity (kW)

14
12 12
10
10
8
8 6
6 4
2
4
0
2 -2
26 28 30 32 34 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
o
Tin ( C) RH (%)
(a) (b)

16
18
Qs Qs
14
16 Ql Ql
Qt
Cooling capacity (kW)

Qt
Cooling capacity (kW)

14 12

12 10
10
8
8
6
6
4 4

2 2
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 8 10 12 14 16
Vin (m/s) Ts (oC)

(c) (d)

14 18
Qs Qs
12 Ql 16
Ql
Qt Qt
Cooling capacity (kW)
Cooling capacity (kW)

14
10
12
8
10
6
8

4 6

2 4

2
0
50 60 70 80 90 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
L (m) D (m)

(e) (f)
Fig. 13. The cooling capacity of EAHE under the influence from different factors.
220 F. Niu et al. / Applied Energy 137 (2015) 211–221

cooling capacity was affected by the tube length more drastically Table 4
than the sensible cooling capacity. Fig. 13(f) shows the cooling R-value of regression function.

capacity along with the change of the tube diameter. The sensible Qs Ql Qt
cooling capacity was linear. The latent cooling capacity was para- R-square 0.999 0.992 0.996
bolic. So the total cooling capacity was also parabolic. The change
rate of sensible cooling capacity was 18.25 kW/m. The wider the
tube diameter was, the faster the latent cooling capacity reduced.
accurately predict the cooling capacities of an EAHE. The prediction
5. Regression of cooling capacity formulas can be easily applied for the different design and opera-
tion conditions. In the real application, the soil temperature can
Models are useful for predicting the performance of a system be predicted by using the soil model for approximating the tube
across a range of operating conditions. These predictions are used surface temperature in the regression formulas. The regression
in energy consumption simulation, system design, advanced con- function will significantly contribute to the design and application
trol techniques or fault detection and diagnosis. The heat transfer of EAHE.
of EAHE was a complex process especial considering both heat
and mass heat transfer. It is very costly to calculate the perfor- ðQ s ; Q l ; Q t Þ ¼ A0 þ A1  T in þ A2  T 2in þ A3  RHin þ A4  RH2in
mance using a sophisticated program before designing an EAHE, þ A5  V in þ A6  V 2in þ A7  T s þ A8  T 2s þ A9  L
which could retard the generalization of EAHE. In order to realize
the quick and optimal design for the application of EAHE, the gen-
þ A10  L2 þ A11  D þ A12  D2 þ A13  T in
eral formulas of sensible cooling capacity, latent cooling capacity  RHin þ A14  T in  V in þ A15  T in  T s þ A16
and total cooling capacity will be achieved. From the previous  T in  L þ A17  T in  D þ A18  RHin  V in þ A19
parametric analysis, we deduced that the regression function in
second-order polynomial form including the cross-terms could  RHin  T s þ A20  RHin  L þ A21  RHin  D
give a high accurate prediction. þ A22  V in  T s þ A23  V in  L þ A24  V in  D
According to the above analysis the cooling capacity was related
þ A25  T s  L þ A26  T s  D þ A27  L  D ð13Þ
to structural factors including the tube length and diameter, and
operational factors including the air temperature and relative
humidity at the inlet of EAHE, the air velocity and the tube surface
6. Conclusions
temperature. Eq. (13) was proposed as the regression function for
the prediction of the cooling capacities. All the simulation results
A one-dimensional steady-state control volume model consid-
obtained in Section 4 were utilized to obtain the model by using
ering both sensible and latent heat transfer was developed for
Matlab 8 regression toolbox. The regression coefficients of sensible,
predicting the performance of an EAHE. The model was calibrated
latent and total cooling capacity are collected in Table 3. The R-
by using the experimental data based on an existing testing facil-
value was calculated as shown in Table 4 to analyze the accuracy
ity. Using the calibrated model the comprehensive performance
of regression function. Because the comprehensive structure of
of EAHE with different structural and operation conditions was
the second-order polynomial equation included the cross-terms,
simulated. The effects of main parameters including the air tem-
the R-value were high, which indicated a great regression. It can
perature and relative humidity, the air velocity at the inlet of EAHE,
the tube surface temperature, the tube length and diameter of
Table 3 EAHE on the performance were analyzed.
Coefficients of regression formulas. According to the analysis on the simulation results, the follow-
Qs Ql Qt ing conclusions can be obtained. The lower the inlet air tempera-
ture was, the smaller the air temperature decreasing rate along
A0 0 0 0
A1 0 0 0 with the length of EAHE was. The air relative humidity under the
A2 0.000116 0.030836 0.031055 high inlet air temperature condition increased faster than that of
A3 0 0 0 the low air temperature condition. The air temperature along with
A4 0.007164 17.72435 17.71276
length of EAHE under the different inlet air relative humidity con-
A5 0 0 0
A6 0.127763 0.0773 0.20431
ditions were the same and it was not affected by the air relative
A7 0 0 0 humidity. The smaller the air velocity was, the faster the air tem-
A8 0.000116 0.00593 0.00578 perature decreasing rate was, and the lower the outlet air temper-
A9 0.155669 0.50583 0.6615 ature was. When the tube surface temperature was much lower,
A10 0.000359 0.00046 0.00082
the air temperature along with the length of EAHE reduced more
A11 0 0 0
A12 4.9243384 6.48894 1.57797 quickly. The air temperature under the big tube diameter condition
A13 0 0 0 reduced more slowly than that of small tube diameter. In addition,
A14 0 0 0 the cooling capacities including the total, sensible and latent cool-
A15 0.003493 0.08743 0.08488 ing capacity under the influences of six structural and operational
A16 0.0041646 5.80E05 0.003989
A17 0 0 0
factors were developed.
A18 0 0 0 The heat transfer of EAHE was a complex process especial con-
A19 0 0 0 sidering both heat and mass heat transfer. It is costly to calculate
A20 0.0003562 0.010468 0.010895 the performance using a sophisticated program before designing
A21 0 0 0
an EAHE. In order to realize the quick and optimal design for the
A22 0 0 0
A23 0.0580706 0.052738 0.110759 application of EAHE, the general formulas with second-order poly-
A24 0 0 0 nomial equation including the cross-terms for sensible cooling
A25 0.006122 0.032116 0.026295 capacity, latent cooling capacity and total cooling capacity were
A26 0 0 0 achieved. High R-values were found for all the predictions. It will
A27 0.1925095 0.295271 0.487971
significantly contribute to the design and application of EAHE.
 F. Niu et al. / Applied Energy 137 (2015) 211–221
Future work will include investigation on the dynamic perfor-
mance of an EAHE system coupling the soil temperature and
control for improved technical and economic performance.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of this study
from University of Nebraska-Lincoln Faculty Start-up Fund and
National High Technology Research and Development Program of
China (863 Program) (2012AA052503).
References
[1] Lund JW, Freeston DH, Boyd TL. Direct application of geothermal energy: 2005
worldwide review. Geothermics 2005;34(6):691–727.
[2] Bisoniya TS, Kumar A, Baredar P. Experimental and analytical studies of earth–
air heat exchanger (EAHE) systems in India: a review. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2013;19:238–46.
[3] Ozgener O, Ozgener L. Determining the optimal design of a closed loop earth to
air heat exchanger for greenhouse heating by using exergoeconomics. Energy
Build 2011;43(4):960–5.
[4] Florides G, Kalogirou S. Ground heat exchangers – a review of systems, models
and application. Renewable Energy 2007;32(15):2461–78.
[5] Vaz J, Sattler MA, dos Santos ED, et al. Experimental and numerical analysis of
an earth–air heat exchanger. Energy Build 2011;43(9):2476–82.
[6] Li H, Yu Y, Niu F, Michel S, Chen B. Performance of a coupled cooling system
with earth-to-air heat exchanger and solar chimney. Renewable Energy
2014;62:468–77.
[7] Cucumo M, Cucumo S, Montoro L, Vulcano A. A one dimensional transient
analytical model for earth-to-air heat exchangers, taking into account
221
condensation phenomena and thermal perturbation from the upper free
surface as well as around the buried pipes. Int J Heat Mass Transf
2008;51:506–16.
[8] Hollmuller P. Analytical characterisation of amplitude-dampening and
phase-shifting in air/soil heat-exchangers. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2003;46:
4303–17.
[9] Paepe M, Janssens A. Thermo-hydraulic design of earth to air heat exchanger.
Energy Build 2003;35:389–97.
[10] Kumar R, Ramesh S, Kaushik SC. Performance evaluation and energy
conservation potential of earth–air–tunnel system coupled with non-air-
conditioned building. Build Environ 2003;38:807–13.
[11] Bansal V, Misra R, Agrawal GD. Performance analysis of earth–pipe–air heat
exchanger for summer cooling. Energy Build 2010;42(5):645–8.
[12] Zhang J, Haghighat F. Simulation of earth to air heat exchanger in hybrid
ventilation systems. In: Ninth international IBPSA conference, Montreal,
Canada, August 15–18; 2005.
[13] Ghosal MK, Tiwari GN, Srivastava NSL. Thermal modeling of a greenhouse with
an integrated earth to air heat exchanger: an experimental validation. Energy
Build 2004;36:219–27.
[14] Yu Y, Li H, Niu F, Yu D. Investigation of a coupled geothermal cooling system
with earth tube and solar chimney. Appl Energy 2014;114:209–17.
[15] ASHRAE handbook- HVAC systems and equipment. Atlanta, Geogia: American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.; 2002.
[ch. 11].
[16] Zhao M. M. Sc. thesis: simulation of earth-to-air heat exchanger systems.
Concordia University; 2004.
[17] Singh SP. Optimization of earth–air tunnel system for space cooling. Energy
Convers Manage 1994;35(8):721–5.
[18] Lemmon EW, Jacobsen RT. Viscosity and thermal conductivity equations for
nitrogen, oxygen, argon, and air. Int J Thermophys 2004;25(1):21–69.
[19] Bergman TL, Lavine AS, Incropera FP, DeWitt DP. Fundamentals of heat and
mass transfer. Wiley Press; 2011.